Apple and Facebook Reportedly Discussed 'Revenue-Sharing' Ideas in Past

[MacRumors]

Facebook has been in a feud with Apple since the iPhone maker introduced its App Tracking Transparency feature that lets users opt out of being tracked across apps on its platforms. In the past, however, Apple reportedly discussed potential "revenue-sharing arrangements" with Facebook that could have given Apple a "slice of Facebook's revenue."

According to The Wall Street Journal, which claims that most of the discussions occurred between 2016 and 2018, one idea that Apple discussed was Facebook creating a subscription-based version of its app without ads. Apple would have collected its standard 15% to 30% commission on Facebook's in-app subscriptions through the App Store, but Facebook ultimately decided against the idea, the report claims.

Apple allegedly also argued that the Facebook app's boosted post function, which allows Facebook pages to promote a post to a larger audience for a fee, should have been considered in-app purchases and thereby subjected to Apple's 30% commission.

In a statement, an Apple spokesperson said that the company routinely meets with developers of all sizes to discuss business matters:

"Every day, we meet and collaborate with developers of all sizes to make suggestions, address concerns, and help them continue to grow their businesses," said an Apple spokesman, who added that the rules for app developers like Facebook are "applied equally to all developers because we think that fair enforcement results in the best user experience."

A second Apple spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal there was "no connection between any discussions of partnerships and the ad-tracking changes that were later implemented," according to the report. App Tracking Transparency was implemented with the iOS 14.5, iPadOS 14.5, and tvOS 14.5 software updates released in April 2021.

App Tracking Transparency has resulted in $17.8 billion in lost revenue among Facebook, Twitter, Snap, and YouTube so far in 2022, according to The Wall Street Journal, citing an estimate by data management company Lotame.

The full report at The Wall Street Journal provides additional details about Apple's and Facebook's differing approaches to user privacy and more.

Article Link: Apple and Facebook Reportedly Discussed 'Revenue-Sharing' Ideas in Past

 

[BootsWalking]

Tim Cook spoke out against Google and Facebook's privacy monetization practices in 2015. One company agreed to pay Apple $10 billion a year to stay in its good graces, the other turned Apple down and is now losing $10 billion a year in lost ad-targeting revenue after Apple changed the default app tracking setting in iOS. I hate Facebook with a passion but this just doesn't sit right with me. Either you're for privacy or not - it shouldn't be situational, based on whether someone hands you bags of money.

 

[polyphenol]

"Ask App Not to Track" is still wrong. It should be "Tell App Not to Track and Make Very Sure It Can't".

 

[KaliYoni]

The last thing I want is some kind of business relationship between Meta/Facebook and Apple. That would be horrible for privacy and security. Then again, Mark Z's non-existent design sense and blinding lack of taste definitely could use a dose of Sir Jony (isn't LoveFrom taking non-Apple clients now?).

 

[mikethemartian]

Tim Cook spoke out against Google and Facebook's privacy monetization practices in 2015. One company agreed to pay Apple $10 billion a year to stay in its good graces, the other turned Apple down and is now losing $10 billion a year in lost ad-targeting revenue after Apple changed the default app tracking setting in iOS. I hate Facebook with a passion but this just doesn't sit right with me. Either your against privacy harvesting or you aren't - it shouldn't be situational, based on whether someone hands you bags of money.

Of course it is situational.

 

[siddavis]

So just like many of Apple’s recent privacy stances, it’s mostly just virtue signaling. Not really grounded in principle…

 

[TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️]

It will be best for the world and humanity if Facebook does not associate with Apple.

When it comes to privacy, I don't think Facebook has the same core values as Apple does.

 

[locovaca]

Tim Cook spoke out against Google and Facebook's privacy monetization practices in 2015. One company agreed to pay Apple $10 billion a year to stay in its good graces, the other turned Apple down and is now losing $10 billion a year in lost ad-targeting revenue after Apple changed the default app tracking setting in iOS. I hate Facebook with a passion but this just doesn't sit right with me. Either you're for privacy or not - it shouldn't be situational, based on whether someone hands you bags of money.

That is not how publicly traded (and most private) for profit companies work. Their job is to make the most money possible for their shareholders, not be bastions of morality for society. Any faith you put into a company to be so is very misplaced.

 

[kalafalas]

If there was an ad-free subscription model for instagram that only showed me posts and stories from people I follow, no ads, no sponsored posts, I would actually use it. I subscribed to ad-free Tumblr and its the best thing.

 

[BootsWalking]

That is not how publicly traded (and most private) for profit companies work. Their job is to make the most money possible for their shareholders, not be bastions of morality for society. Any faith you put into a company to be so is very misplaced.

I'm fine with Apple maximizing profit. Just don't pretend to be a beacon of privacy protection at the same time you're making back-room deals with the companies you're publicly railing against for harvesting users' privacy.

 

[alpi123]

If there was an ad-free subscription model for instagram that only showed me posts and stories from people I follow, no ads, no sponsored posts, I would actually use it. I subscribed to ad-free Tumblr and its the best thing.

There's a way to do that. Youtube too.

 

[TSE]

I support whatever increases that stock price.

 

[NT1440]

Tim Cook spoke out against Google and Facebook's privacy monetization practices in 2015. One company agreed to pay Apple $10 billion a year to stay in its good graces, the other turned Apple down and is now losing $10 billion a year in lost ad-targeting revenue after Apple changed the default app tracking setting in iOS. I hate Facebook with a passion but this just doesn't sit right with me. Either you're for privacy or not - it shouldn't be situational, based on whether someone hands you bags of money.

Low level discussions between companies happen all the time. If your CEO has to personally sign off on all discussions proposals your company is horribly flawed.

Even IF this proposal made it anywhere close to the upper ranks of the company it was going to be shot down.

 

[NT1440]

So just like many of Apple’s recent privacy stances, it’s mostly just virtue signaling. Not really grounded in principle…

Elaborate.

Is someone 40 steps down the management chain making proposals really something to be worked up about when it never made it close to fruition?

 

[TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️]

I support whatever increases that stock price.

Are you sure because that means Facebook will be invading your privacy and finding out what you do 24/7? They will have access to all your data. Are you ok with that?

 

[TSE]

Are you sure because that means Facebook will be invading your privacy and finding out what you do 24/7? They will have access to all your data. Are you ok with that?

As long as my accounts get bigger equal or greater to the proportion I value my privacy, have at it Meta!

 

[smirking]

The last thing I want is some kind of business relationship between Meta/Facebook and Apple. That would be horrible for privacy and security. Then again, Mark Z's non-existent design sense and blinding lack of taste definitely could use a dose of Sir Jony (isn't LoveFrom taking non-Apple clients now?).

Apple + Facebook. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[NT1440]

Are you sure because that means Facebook will be invading your privacy and finding out what you do 24/7? They will have access to all your data. Are you ok with that?

The proposal has been dead for years, so this question is more philosophical than anything, yes?

I’d be annoyed, not for myself because I dropped social media over 5 years ago, but friends and family still use FB (unfortunately).

 

[Naraxus]

El oh el. Just another example of Tim "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" Cook not walking his talk. He is such a two-faced scumbag and the sooner he's gone from Apple the better.

 

[macduke]

There is a reason why this saying exists:

“Never make deals with the Devil.”

 

[NT1440]

El oh el. Just another example of Tim "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" Cook not walking his talk. He is such a two-faced scumbag and the sooner he's gone from Apple the better.

Please, point to where this proposal got anywhere near approval at the top of the company.

Is Tim also responsible if an Apple Store employee steals credit card info from a customer in the store?

 

[BootsWalking]

Low level discussions between companies happen all the time. If your CEO has to personally sign off on all discussions proposals your company is horribly flawed.

Even IF this proposal made it anywhere close to the upper ranks of the company it was going to be shot down.

LOL, like how the upper ranks shot down the deal with Google, a privacy violator as bad as Facebook?

 

[Naraxus]

That is not how publicly traded (and most private) for profit companies work. Their job is to make the most money possible for their shareholders, not be bastions of morality for society. Any faith you put into a company to be so is very misplaced.

If that's the case then why does the CEO of Apple try at every opportunity to get on his soapbox and virtue signal to the world?

 

[scheinderrob]

apple privacy for sale...shocker

 

[ackmondual]

So just like many of Apple’s recent privacy stances, it’s mostly just virtue signaling. Not really grounded in principle…

That is not how publicly traded (and most private) for profit companies work. Their job is to make the most money possible for their shareholders, not be bastions of morality for society. Any faith you put into a company to be so is very misplaced.

In the end, a soulless corporation trying to pass themselves as having a soul, is still a soulless corporation.